Tweet

Marc Ambinder

9 Sep, 9 tweets, 2 min read

Maybe I shouldn’t be thinking this way, because, you know, he’s Bob Woodward and I’m not, and go team journalism, rah, but: how many lives could have been .. well... if Trump supporters in March heard audio of him and Woodward — like the father of DNC speaker Kristin Urquiza.

Trump was the key vector of harmful misinformation. ... We KNOW that his supporters BELIEVE HIM and altered their behavior because they thought COVID would be less harmful then the flu ... cause that’s what Trump said.

And yeah you’re writing a book. Your 18th. But 25k people die. 50k people. 150K. Sitting on the info. Knowing who people are taking their cues from. Do we not at some point just say, hey publisher - I’m returning my advance and gonna report this now?

Journalist friends - please tell me why I’m wrong. Tell me where my intuitions go astray. Tell me that there is a higher value here I’m not getting. Because I’m inclined to say that holding onto this is and was flat out wrong. Period.

So, yeah the go-to defense is that in journalism, Woodward more than anyone has drilled into us that our promise to a source is more sacred than anything else. And in circumstances where life and death are not literally in the balance, I would be Woodwardian.

Journalism can’t survive unless source agreements are iron-clad and unbreakable always. Um, journalism still does amazing things but it’s not exactly thriving, and if the cost of vitiating a source agreement to potentially save lives in an unprecedented global catastrophe is

... to somehow have to work other sources harder to build back that trust, I think it’s a fairly small price to pay. Especially if you’re Bob Woodward. Please tell me where my intuitions are wrong here.

I would go to jail to protect a source. I would get fired to protect a source. I would. I would not literally drop every other single consideration possible for a source because journalism. And this isn’t close. It was on the record. Implicit agreement. Definitely going to

.... come out. How the heck can we expect people to trust us when we DO NOT tell them the best and most useful version of the truth in public health emergencies when we know how information works and we know lives are in the balance?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Marc Ambinder

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @marcambinder

Marc Ambinder

@marcambinder

4 Jun

I spoke to a number of former federal law enforcement officials and messaged with some current ones. Here’s a round-up of their sense of what’s happening in Washington, D.C.

Read 8 tweets

Marc Ambinder

@marcambinder

31 May

A few media competence notes: in the last month or so, I’ve noticed a significant uptick in the number of folks I encounter across social platforms who see something sensational and THEN rightfully ask for receipts BEFORE sharing. Usually re: the pandemic. That’s great!

Also, people seem to be aware from a meta cognitive perspective of the amplification effect. That’s great too. So let’s continue to apply those lessons to information, videos and tweets we see about the protests and unrests. As others have noted, it’s frighteningly easy to..

...spread bad information rapidly, and the motives are often unknown. We can see the direct effects of spreading a false viral video - people take action if they’re angry or engaged enough.

Read 9 tweets

Marc Ambinder

@marcambinder

28 May

@jayrosen_nyu

Journalists do have a agenda. The quicker we admit it, the more crisply we can shape it. (Truth, participation, evidence, democracy, science, curiosity, anti-corruption, anti-authoritarian.). That’s our side. This is a great piece by ⁦@jayrosen_nyu⁩ pressthink.org/2020/05/you-ca…

It’s hard to figure out how to advocate for those things without becoming unduly captured by interests or candidates, but that’s where the work is to be done. That’s the challenge; that’s where we need to focus.

Each of those values has a specific meaning; they aren’t mere words. We know what corruption is. We know what it means to encourage and discourage participation in democratic debates. We know how to assess evidence. Etc.

Read 5 tweets

Marc Ambinder

@marcambinder

16 May

@AshaRangappa_

Why is there no “unmasking” list for the Flynn/Kislyak 12/29 call? Because (read @AshaRangappa_ for more on this) there was no need to mask his identity within the agency (FBI) that collected the call and subsequently briefed the policymakers. (FBI does counterintelligence...)

@washpost

Comey testified that the FBI directly briefed the WH under its CI remit, which is normal. When the call leaked to (1/17) in the @washpost, there was no mystery about the call.

Once again - a US person’s identity gets anonymized or masked when the NSA / FBI distributes an external report on the call’s contents to officials and policymakers. The NSA disseminated a LOT of product on intercepts that happened to pick up Flynn in 12/16. Why? Ask Flynn.

Read 6 tweets

Marc Ambinder

@marcambinder

17 Mar

Here’s what the president can and cannot do using the powers of the Defense Production Act of 1950 amended in 2014). This isn’t secret law or martial law. He can require companies to prioritize (accept contracts in service of) national defense. hsdl.org/?view&did=7600…

He can use loans, loan guarantees, and other incentives to persuade companies that already manufacture necessary stuff to do it much faster.

Here is how (as of 2019) the act defines national defense, which, in 1950 basicallly meant nuclear war. He CAN use the act for “emergency preparedness,” which directly links activities covered by the Stafford Act.

Read 4 tweets

Marc Ambinder

@marcambinder

9 Mar

Some thoughts about communication and misinformation and #COVID19. 1. Mistrust of the federal government and other national culture-shaping institutions has devolved the locus of authority to states and localities. Look at how many subscribers your local health dept now has.

2. The major media needs a counter-disinformation strategy and pronto. This includes everything from backend editorial and headline choices to amplification effect training to reminders to audiences not to Tweet or share everything that scares them.

@CNN

3. I do not see the point in @CNN deciding to “call” #COVID2019 a pandemic before health officials do. It seems simultaneously true that the reality is grim AND media-nourished panic responses can make it worse. Why brand this? Why call attention to the branding?

Read 9 tweets

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!